A matter of record?

Today's the day that the Court of Appeal for England and Wales opened its doors to the television cameras (on which see here, here and here). This blogger doesn't expect the workings of the court to make great viewing, well recalling his previous visit when he watched a man in a wig reading in a monotone to a panel of three elderly gentlemen who appeared to be taking it in turns to keep their eyes open.  Certainly there will be less scope for action replays and snickometers than there might be for a snooze button.

When you come to think of it, most of what we do these days is monitored or recorded one way or another. CCTV footage captures our every public move; every time we deploy a security pass, an Oyster card, Starbucks Loyalty card or whatever, we leave a little electronic footprint as a hostage for all eternity. Even when we phone our banks, utilities, retailers or medical service suppliers, how often are we now welcomed with a message that "This call may be recorded for training purposes/customer care/quality assurance ..."

But how many of us have the foresight to record a first interview with a prospective client?  This may not be such a bad idea, and it's nothing to do with entertainment value.  After all, while subsequent communications may be recorded as emails, attachments, text messages or voicemail, that first encounter may be evidenced by nothing more reliable, or objectively verifiable, than the lawyer's hand-written scrawl or a notes hastily typed up in real time on a tablet.  Yet misconceptions and misapprehensions acquired by a client at the outset can persist through time and space, leaving a sense of bitterness or betrayal that is quite unfounded.  Perhaps we need more recording, not less ,,,